Login
close
Login is restricted to DCN Publisher Members. If you are a DCN Member and don't have an account, register here.
Search

Digital Content Next logo

Menu

Tags containing: "Ad Blocking"

Perspectives | Revenue

Finding solutions in the thorny, confusing world of ad-blocking

For publishers obsessing over ad-blocking (and few aren’t), the news lately has been mixed and confusing. A recent IAB/YouGov study in the U.K. finds that more people are using ad-blockers, but that more than half would disable their blockers in exchange for viewing content. And while Google has banned ad-blocking software in the Google Play store, they still allow ad-blocking browsers. And the IAB has set out guidelines for publishers to deal with ad-blocking visitors, but hasn’t addressed the root of the problem—the poor customer experience with ads.

For publishers treading the complex world of ad-blocking, these are strong indicators that they must figure out a healthy balance of insistence, tolerance and acceptance. Pure standardization on ad-blocking might not ever happen given current circumstances, and so publishers ought to take note and take the necessary action for their business and audience.

Popularity of ad-blockers
The IAB study found the number of people using ad blockers in the U.K. has increased to 22%, from 18% just a few months earlier. It also found that ad-blocking was most popular among 18- to 24-year-olds, with nearly half of respondents (47%) using them. And the number of people around the world who use ad-blocking software has doubled in the last two years to 200 million, according to estimates by Adobe and PageFair, an anti-blocking service. Apple’s decision last fall to allow ad blockers on its latest iOS update has no doubt propelled the propensity toward ad-blocking.

That Google, then, has taken a firmer stand against ad-blocking while still allowing for ad-blocking browsers in its app store shows how confusing this territory is. No publisher wants to lose out on the revenue that these ads generate (a report by Adobe and PageFair found that ad-blocking could cost publishers $41.4 billion globally this year, compared to $21.8 billion in 2015). But no one wants to be the bad guy to the consumer either, and the reasons people use ad-blocking software are clear: They are unhappy about behavior tracking and slow page-load times.

As Emily Bell recently put it, ad blockers are used by people who aren’t necessarily out to harm the industries behind the advertising, but who are looking out for their wallets. “Ad-blocking thrives because of a failure towards consumers,” she wrote in the Guardian. “Forcing people to consume advertising that strips their data and costs them money is hardly a vote-winning strategy.”

That’s likely why Google hasn’t completely jumped ship when it comes to ad-blocking, according to Android Police’s Ruddock. “Google knows that ad-blocking browsers are popular enough that not having them on Android could hurt the platform.”

Solutions for publishers?
So what is the best strategy to have? Guy Phillipson, chief executive of IAB UK, said transparency is key. “Part of the solution to tackle ad-blocking lies in making consumers more aware of the consequences, which seems like it’s starting to filter through,” he said. “If they realize it means they can’t access content or that to do so requires paying for it, then they might stop using ad blockers. It requires reinforcing this trade-off message—ads help to fund the content they enjoy for free.”

A few websites, including Forbes, Wired and the Washington Post, have already started doing this. When Forbes detected users with ad blockers visiting their sites, it asked them to turn the software off—and 42% of visitors obliged.

The IAB also released its guide for publishers on how to approach their consumers to turn off their ad blocking software by offering a “D.E.A.L.”, which stands for Detect, Explain, Ask and Lift restrictions or Limit access, based on the consumer’s choice. So chances are, more websites are going to start this negotiation process with users — asking them to either turn off the ad blocker or pay up.

The new IAB guidelines are not without their concerns, though, with the IAB acknowledging it’s a drastic measure that could alienate users. And as Ed Papazian of Media Dynamics Inc. questioned, “How is this going to work unless publishers with ‘good’ content, who get users to disable their ad blockers, also find ways to minimize the disruptive impact of too many ads per page and their helter-skelter intrusions on the user’s experience with the site?”

So while consumers will perhaps learn to accept the business models behind the content they want to access, the onus to make the ad experience better for users is still on the publisher. And having a better ad environment, in the end, is better for users, publishers and advertisers.

Perspectives

Consumer matters: trust, transparency and the open web 

I have no doubt the next year will bring meaningful developments in defense of the open web—the essential platform where publishers are able to distribute and monetize their content directly with consumers. On the open web—one in which information flows freely and gatekeepers are not able to restrict that flow—transparency rules, from sources to source code, and the most valued commodity is trust.

To that end, champions of the open web are now writing and debating rules that will impact the value of publishers’ relationships with their readers and viewers. It’s our role at DCN to ensure that the united voice of the 74 premium publishers in our membership is clearly heard.

Last week, DCN sent an important letter to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) after it recently signaled it’s drafting the privacy rules it promised last year when it issued the Open Internet Order (aka “Net Neutrality”). Internet Service Providers (ISPs), which include both carriers and cable operators, have argued that the rules of the wider web are sufficient for them. Of course, Verizon Wireless famously proved otherwise last year.

DCN, as the voice of premium publishers, has asked the FCC to consider context and consumer expectations in writing these rules. Significantly, it appears that no ISP wants to be identified as holding a privileged position in being able to collect and use data on consumers. I’m not sure how this argument holds water considering the fact that consumers now keep personal, connected devices on 24/7 wherever they go. Consider that your mobile broadband provider can see all the activity on your phone—your web history, app usage, phone calls, friends and even your location history—and then tie that data back to the subscriber data they have about you. Clearly ISPs have a heightened responsibility to provide transparency, choice, and control for consumers.

ISPs have begun to fund research from respected academic and industry thought leaders in an attempt to prove that they are in an inferior position to companies like Facebook and Google in collecting this data. Let’s face it: There are also plenty of concerns about how Facebook, Google (and much of the adtech complex) mine data across the web and mobile as well, and our interest in a higher level of consumer trust is certainly not limited to the ISPs. All parties collecting data out of context of consumer expectations carry responsibility to be transparent and offer real choices to consumers. That said, just because some parts of the marketplace have systemic problems with trust doesn’t mean we should default to the lowest common denominator for ISPs. We should all aspire to do better – publishers as well, who carry the flag of trust as much as any party.

DCN’s focus on data ownership and consumer privacy is not only an effort for securing consumer trust but also an effort to secure the economics that will pay for the trusted content of the future. Location and behavioral data collected by third parties is what currently fuels much of the dysfunctional digital advertising marketplace. You know, the one where Google and Facebook eat half of the dinner while adtech gobbles up much of the marketers’ dessert. This market, unlike any other media, consists mostly of direct response advertising targeting thumb taps, installs, clicks and fleeting actions – not the kind of advertising that engenders consumer trust and funds premium content experiences.

Then, of course, there is the rising specter of ad blockers. The industry has rightly been up in arms over this issue for more than a year. The IAB, which represents ad tech companies, went so far recently as to call ad blockers “an unethical, immoral, mendacious, coven of techie wannabes” with “silly titles and funny walks.” Although it made for an interesting sideshow, this is a serious issue and we need to be clear on what is happening: Google, the single largest recipient and dependency of advertising revenues and by far the largest and most influential member of the IAB, is paying the #1 blocker, Adblock Plus (“ABP”), to have its ads “whitelisted” and thereby likely helping to keep ABP’s lights on.

However, pointing all of the blame at ABP and their sketchy business model only does so much because I’m not so sure that consumers care. If ABP and any other for-profit ad blockers went away tomorrow, there are plenty of non-profit ad blockers that would immediately fill the void. The best thing the leaders of our industry can do is to focus on solving the problem from the consumer’s perspective.

I see countless examples of DCN Member companies taking this approach and testing a wide range of possible solutions to ad blocking, from revamping ad and content experiences to consumer education to streamlining mobile experiences by reducing interference by intermediaries. And this month, I have the opportunity to explore approaches and issues from another vantage point at dozens of meetings with senior leaders of European organizations representing advertisers, agencies and publishers. As always, I’ll be leaning in, particularly focused on seeking consumer-focused insights that help advance the future of trusted content. I expect these insights to include thoughts on Google AMP, Facebook Instant Articles, ad blocking and an issue very much related and important in 2016—data ownership. I’ll keep you posted.

Perspectives | Policy

The case for context

Rob Norman, Global Chief Digital Officer for GroupM, recently spoke at Industry Preview 2016 in January. He said, “If privacy and the policies that create an advantage for some are reexamined and unbundled the extended ecosystems of targeting, ad deployment and attribution are going to start to look like a Swiss cheese. They will be full of holes with bells on. Real context – and this is good for the publishers and the creators of content – I think will rise in value.”

Given that digital advertising on the wider web is the least trusted form of advertising  and that increasing numbers of consumers are boycotting it altogether, Norman’s point is correct: context is key. For advertisers and publishers, delivering relevant advertising within an appropriate context is going to rise in value.

But, just as importantly, context is key to meeting consumer expectations. When a consumer’s data is collected and used only to enhance their experience within a single website or experience, they are much more likely to trust that site. Unfortunately, consumer trust is low today. As noted in TRUSTe’s 2016 Consumer Confidence Index, “74% (of consumers) have limited their online activity due to privacy concerns.”

In recent years, public policymakers have called on industry to give more controls to consumers over how their data is collected and used – in short, to respect context. President Obama’s Privacy Bill of Rights framework noted that “consumers have a right to expect that companies will collect, use, and disclose personal data in ways that are consistent with the context in which consumers provide the data.” To the extent that a consumer’s personal data will be used outside the context where it was collected or for reasons not disclosed at the time of collection, the President called on companies to provide transparency and choice to the consumer.

In 2012, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) issued a report, entitled “Protecting Consumer Privacy in an Era of Rapid Change.” The FTC’s report noted that “whether a practice requires choice turns on the extent to which the practice is consistent with the context of the transaction or the consumer’s existing relationship with the business…”

This much is clear: consumers are not happy. As noted by TRUSTe, they are taking active steps to limit their online activity. And without transparency and meaningful controls, they are downloading ad blocking software in record numbers. Even advertisers are not happy because there is little transparency about where their ads are being shown and whether they are being shown to actual humans.

Our industry needs to do more to provide transparency and meaningful tools for consumers to express choice. By respecting context in this way, we can improve consumer trust in the digital ecosystem.

Advertising | Industry-Research

Ad blockers are the new premium target audience

Marketers are focusing on a newly valued audience segment know as ad blockers. Consumers using ad blocking software tend to be more tech savvy and in the millennial age range. According to a new report published by the International News Media Association (INMA), this premium audience segment offers a new opportunity for advertisers to engage with consumers who care and interact with valued advertisements.

PageFair, which sells services to measure ad blocking and offers alternative non-intrusive advertising to consumers, contributed to the INMA report, “What to do about ad blocking?” PageFair has also estimated that the total lost revenue from ad blocking grew approximately from $5.8 billion in 2014 to $10.7 in 2015.

The INMA report recommends specific strategies for publishers to avoid:

  • Do not use undeveloped anti-ad blocking technology like domain rotation.
  • Do not rely on native advertising since this can also be blocked.
  • Do not depend on advertising partnerships with walled gardens like Facebook or Apple News.
  • Do not refuse to show content to ad blockers.

Importantly publishers need to respond to ad blockers. This is the time to talk to ad blockers, the time to try new ad formats and the time to discover what specifications need to be included in advertising 2.0.

Advertising | Perspectives | Revenue

Moving past the ad blocking arms race and back to the consumer

Ad blocking has forced the publishing industry to rethink its reliance on advertising, and several digital publishers have incorporated ecommerce and affiliate links as a way to diversify their revenue streams. Now, those same ecommerce links, previously considered immune to ad blockers, are the “latest unlikely casualty of ad blocking,” according to a recent article from Digiday.

While Purch’s ecommerce or facilitated ecommerce links haven’t been tangibly impacted, ad blocking – and this particular type – is forcing all publishers to rethink monetization strategy and user experience.

The Digiday article quotes Sean Blanchfield, CEO of PageFair, a startup that sells anti-ad blocking tech to publishers as stating, “There are no privacy or usability implications to e-commerce attribution; it is a simple practice that helps websites get paid for honest recommendations of products….it causes unnecessary financial damage to thousands of independent websites.”

There is a valid point here. The impetus behind ad blocking was to prevent disruption and irrelevant noise on a page so the user could focus on the content. Yet, unlike most ads, ecommerce links are often directly correlated to the content provided on the page – and in the best cases enhance the user’s experience. Ad blockers have gone too far with targeting these ecommerce links, but this doesn’t mean digital publishers should panic. It means they should pivot – diversifying even further and providing additional value to users.

Increase loyalty by improving the user experience
Publishers should concentrate on building the lifetime value of a user (the total future potential) by exploring other ways to provide a better experience to keep them coming back. Creating valuable and relevant services, tools and content that serves the overall relationship is what will ultimately sustain the industry. Publishers who take a longer view by focusing on increasing the number of loyal users instead of increasing the number of page views and maximizing the yield of every interaction will not only end up winning against ad blockers; they will end up winning over users.

Some publishers are doing this in the most simplistic way – creating a highly-engaged and loyal audience by providing real value through highly specialized content. Focusing less on scale and more on quality can engage users for the long-term, while staying true to the sentiment behind “content is king.”

Another way to increase the lifetime value of a user is to design a loyalty program that recognizes and rewards the most engaged, frequent and long-term users, who often drive a large percentage of overall revenue. Some of the more experimental publishers may even offer an ad-free or ad-reduced experience to their most loyal users – or as an incentive to share their email address. This could persuade users to turn off ad blockers, especially as they become increasingly non-discriminative in discerning what’s true content and what’s not.

Engineer an ecosystem of services to regain control of audience interactions
With ad blockers ultimately dictating how a user experiences a publisher’s site, we’re likely to see the industry test new ways to regain control of how their audiences are interacting with content. Publishers specializing in travel have also excelled at this. TripAdvisor, Kayak and Bookings.com offer reviews and advice to aid their users during the research phase and when the consumer is ready, they can book everything they need, all within the confines of a single site and in a way that is untouchable to ad blockers. This model is not only diverse, but also encourages loyalty by providing a truly “sticky” service to users.

Not all of this has to be built organically. Resourceful publishers will also look for complimentary technologies or services and integrate those with their sites – or their mobile apps. Mobile apps are also a great way to re-claim control over the user experience and how ecommerce links and ads are integrated. The best part? Ad blocking apps that block ads within mobile apps have been rejected by app stores which means publishers are likely to retain control of their mobile experiences for the foreseeable future.

The future of digital publishing
Our peer group – the digital influencers coming up today – are likely to redefine the industry, and probably won’t even see ourselves as just “publishers” in the years to come as focus shifts to revenue augmentation through services and alternate models.

Unfortunately, it seems likely that 2016 will be an arms race between ad blockers and blockers of ad blockers. There will be no clear winner with one clear loser: the user. Users lose as ad blockers continue to take away the very control that attracted them to their tools in the first place. The important thing is to keep our focus on the customer relationship and move toward a future where a better user experience trumps short-term monetary gains.

Phil Barrett is a Digital Marketing and eCommerce Executive with experience managing cross-channel programs where he has helped companies and brands use technology and new media to drive measurable results across the marketing mix. He currently serves as Senior Vice President & GM at Purch, where he leads the Marketing & Shopper Services teams.

Advertising | Innovation | Perspectives

The future of media depends on great consumer experiences

With audiences widely dispersed among mobile and social apps – and, soon, virtual reality and augmented reality experiences– publishers who want to thrive must both follow consumers where they want to go and meet them on their own terms.

These were a couple of the themes that emerged from the wide-ranging conversations at Digital Content Next’s annual members-only Summit 2016 in Miami. DCN members met to explore content and business models given that consumption patterns are constantly changing, many consumers are actively avoiding advertising, and digital intermediaries are extracting much of the value out of the publishing economy. Speakers and attendees talked about changing their relationship with programmatic ad marketplaces, seeking alternative sources of revenue from subscriptions and memberships, and aggressively pursuing revenue diversification.

In his opening remarks, DCN CEO Jason Kint noted that although the Interactive Advertising Bureau recently celebrated the milestone of $50 billion in revenue generated by online advertising, more than 50% of the revenue currently goes to two companies: Google and Facebook, with premium publishers collectively garnering about 15%.

“Most of the money doesn’t actually get into your pocket to pay for the professional content, the entertainment and journalism you all do,” Kint said. DCN’s mission is “to make sure the next $50 billion is different.”

Premium publishers need to build on the trust and reputation they enjoy, rather than fighting with consumers over their use of ad blockers, Kint said, pointing out that a blockers are a symptom of consumer dissatisfaction. Smart publishers need to look at the opportunity “in the growth of this audience that is looking for content on new terms.”

“It’s a symptom of a bad user experience – users taking action on their own,” agreed Justen Fox, senior product manager for revenue products at Vox Media. Consumers are weary of pop-up and pop-under ads, not to mention advertising that contains malware. He finds that the use of ad blockers is higher with social and referral traffic, undermining audience acquisition, and said it’s also higher with returning visitors to Vox’s websites. If publishers and advertisers fail to clean up their act, the problem will keep getting worse, he said.

“Focusing on the user experience is actually the long-term solution,” Fox said. However, no publisher can do it alone because consumer impressions are formed by the experience they get across all media sites.

Sarah Frank, executive producer of Now This News, said that killing their website and forgetting about SEO is the best decision they ever made. It gave them the mandate to create content experiences optimized for different social channels so that consumers have a great experience wherever they find Now This content.

Marketers take action
Meanwhile, marketers seeking to distinguish themselves from the bad actors in digital media are increasingly creating their own content to build positive customer relationships—with or without the help of publishers.

marketerpanel
(L-R) Dave Peck, Global Head of Influencer & Social Media Marketing, PayPal; Katrina Craigwell, Director, Global Content & Programming, GE; Christopher G. Laughlin, Client Services Director, SapientNitro; and Laura Henderson, Global Head of Content & Media Monetization, Mondelez International

“We’re trying to figure out, how we stop interrupting the content and become the content,” said Laura Henderson, global head of content and media monetization at Mondelez International.

Her group has gone as far as to decide the content it creates ought to be good enough to make money on its own merits. One of the products from this division of Kraft Foods, the Oreo Twist, Lick, Dunk mobile game, made back 2.5 times the money spent to produce it, with about 5 billion virtual Oreo cookies dunked, Henderson said.

Like publishers, marketers “feel the pain of ad blocking, of our content being skipped, blocked, avoided at all costs – which means we need to figure out a new way,” she said.

Katrina Craigwell, director of global content and programming at GE, leads a team dedicated to connecting with lovers of science and technology on any medium or platform where they can be found. These content creators compare themselves less with their traditional industrial competitors than with media sites that create engaging tech content, be it the SyFy Channel or the people at NASA who produced the “7 Minutes of Terror” Mars lander video.

Asked if she had any use for publishers now that GE can publish its own content, Craigwell said she looks for partners who know how to tell a great story or can help the firm figure out an approach to emerging formats, such as virtual reality.

Building brand strength
Many of the discussions of how publishers adapted concerned how they preserve their brand value while adapting to new business and content delivery models. The Onion Chief Operating Officer Kurt Mueller said that is something the satire site has had to be careful about with its experiments in native advertising: content is sponsored by advertisers but produced by the editorial staff.

The challenge is readers expect a certain attitude from Onion content, “and if we don’t give it to them, it comes off really badly for both us and the brand. You’re just creating ads if it’s not authentic to what you are,” Mueller said.

Laura Evans, VP of audience development and data science at Scripps Networks Interactive pointed out that data offers an excellent way to understand customer preferences, which can be leveraged to create better experiences. The goal, said Evans, is to “turn a visitor into a brand loyalist.”

As Membership Economy author, Robbie Kellman Baxter put it, “you need to love your customer more than your product” in order to create a positive relationship that will last a lifetime. And, as DCN CEO Kint pointed out in his opening remarks, “No business has succeeded, long term, without giving its customers a great experience.”

David F. Carr is a writer, editor, web consultant, and student of digital business. He is a Forbes contributor, a former InformationWeek Editor-at-Large, and the author of Social Collaboration for Dummies.

 

Perspectives

Is your data leaking?

We hear a lot about ad blocking and ad fraud, but surprisingly little about data leakage, the underlying problem that feeds both. What is data leakage, anyway?

Sophia Cope at NAA: Data leakage is the collection and monetization of an online publisher’s audience data by a third party without the publisher’s knowledge and consent.

John McDermott at Digiday: Data leakage typically occurs when a brand, agency or ad tech company collects data about a website’s audience and subsequently uses that data without the initial publisher’s permission.

Note that these definitions include nothing about user permission. That’s a separate issue. Data leakage is a publisher/third-party problem, not a publisher/user problem. Both definitions are based on publisher permission.

That’s a good start. But “permission” is hard. The reality is that publishers often don’t understand all of the third-party resources on their own sites. And to make things worse, third parties bring along other third parties … with the result being that pages can end up with 50-70 third-party pixels, scripts, and iframes. (There’s even a zone on the Lumascape devoted to services that a publisher can use to figure out what other services they’re using.)

Every one of those third parties comes with some kind of contractual “permission.” All of those permissions, though, are expressed in complex contracts. Even if a publisher can afford to comprehend the terms of one contract, the set of resources on a page can introduce unwanted data transfers working in combination. And the combinations of technology and contracts change faster than anyone can evaluate them.

Learning from security software
It’s inadvisable for security companies to call malware “malware” when the malware developer has a lawyer. The solution has been to come up with a new category name, Potentially Unwanted Programs (PUPs). The definition is based on whether the software works against the user’s interests, not on whether the user has clicked on “I agree” after not reading a complex, deceptive contract.

Labeling programs as PUPs is a small win. It is possible to define a problem in terms of interests and norms, not in terms of what someone has “agreed” to. We will be able to have a more productive discussion of the data leakage problem if we can shift the definition from one based on “permission” to one based on publisher interests and business norms. Remember: Data leakage is not a problem about user permission (which is another story). Instead, user norms and expectations can be a helpful way to establish the definition of data leakage.

So here’s a new definition:
Data leakage is collection or transfer of publisher audience data in a manner that violates the norms and expectations of the members of the audience.

Why is it important to clearly define data leakage? Because we still have trouble collecting data on it, and to do so, we need to know what to measure. We don’t know how much of the ongoing problem that newspapers have with building online ad revenue is attributable to data leakage.

In order to measure data leakage, we have to define it based on a reasonable standard, not on a mess of contracts that results in publishers unknowingly “agreeing” to practices that work against their interests.

Finding data leakage
We can look for leaks at the top of the pipe and at the bottom:

Bad bots visiting good sites: Fraudulent ad inventory gains value from associated user data, which is why even the best-run sites still get some fraudbot traffic. Bots are collecting cookies on legit sites, then showing up as valuable “users” on fraud sites. If your site has a small bot problem, then any advertiser paying to reach your users on other sites will have a big bot problem.

Good audiences available in bad places: We don’t have access to the “user data chop shops” that sit between legit publishers and sales of targeted impressions based on publisher data. But we can look at demand-side platforms to find out where valuable impressions are showing up, and measure the impact of anti-data-leakage tests.

Data leakage is an important issue that must be better understood and addressed.We can’t deal with ad blocking, ad fraud, and low ad revenue without understanding the data leakage problem. The good news is that data leakage is measurable, if we work it from the legit publisher end and the questionable inventory end.

 

Don Marti (@dmarti) is a contributor of code and documentation to the aloodo.org project, a low-friction way for sites and brands to reclaim the value of online advertising from fraud and ad blocking. He serves as a strategic advisor for Mozilla, and is the former editor of Linux Journal. Don is the subject of an out-of-date Wikipedia article which he will not edit himself, but wishes that someone would.

Ad Block Report Header
DCN-Research

2015 DCN Consumer Ad Block Report

The 2015 DCN Consumer Ad Block Report explores the increasing threat posed by ad blocking software. The Report examines consumer attitudes toward ad blocking software, finding that 33% of U.S. consumers are very likely or somewhat likely to try ad blocking software in the next three months. Available to DCN members only, the report offers additional insights into awareness and usage of ad blocking software, attitudes towards perceived performance impact on browsing experience, and how perceptions differ between premium content and social media sites.

According to DCN Research Director Rande Price, survey responses often over-estimate actual behavior, therefore a “discounting” formula was applied to attempt to estimate intended install rates. “We estimate about half of the ‘very likely’ responders and one quarter of the ‘somewhat likely’ responders – a net take rate of 9% – will opt out of advertising in the next three months,” said Price.

Additional findings from the report:

  • Experience: More than 70% dislike ads that expand over content or play with sound.
  • Tracking: 68% are concerned when ads track their behavior.
  • Performance: 57% note their web pages load too slowly with ads.
If you are a DCN publisher member, please be sure to log in or register to access the special member’s only Report, which will appear below this notice once you have logged in.
Jason Kint and Julie Brill
Perspectives

DCN hosts fireside chat with FTC Commissioner Brill on lessons learned from Ad Blocking (video)

Below is a summary and video from DCN’s “The Consumer Rules: Lessons From Ad Blocking” event, held December 16, 2015 at the Newseum in Washington D.C. Parts 1 & 2 can be found here.

Following a panel discussion, Jason Kint, CEO of Digital Content Next interviewed FTC Commissioner Julie Brill about lessons learned from Ad Blocking (full video at the end of this post).

The interview started off with defining “consumer harm,” with regards to online content. Brill said the definition includes financial harm, but has broadened to include access and use of information in unexpected ways. She said the FTC always tries to think of online behavior from the consumer perspective and to consider whether the way in which companies collect or use information cause real, tangible harm. She went on to cite several actual FTC cases to illustrate how the FTC interpreted the harm caused to consumers.

There is, it appears, a common thread between consumers clearing cookies to protect privacy, that moved on to the desire for a Do Not Track browser option, to what we now see: consumers opting out of advertising entirely through ad blocking. This progression offers a great encapsulation of how the notion of privacy has changed, according to Brill. While privacy is the number three issue consumers cite for blocking digital ads, she pointed out that this is still high on the list of reasons and must be taken seriously.

Brill has seen the definition of privacy change over the years: It used to be about seclusion, being able to withdraw from society. Today, privacy has become about being able to control with whom you are communicating and how you are communicating. She said that it is important to keep in mind this notion of control as we create content experiences online.

Brill and Kint dug into the myth that younger people don’t care about privacy given their willingness to share a great deal of information about their lives publically. As demonstrated by the popularity of apps like Snapchat, this openness has limitations that need to be factored in.

Kint then queried the FTC’s possible role in monitoring the white listing practices of ad blocking companies. Brill made it clear that she couldn’t comment on specific companies’ actions. However, she pointed to the Google Safari case in which it circumvented Apple’s cookie blocking as illustrative. It is important, she said, to look at cases like that in which one company is trying to circumvent what another company or consumer is doing. When the consumer has made a clear choice, she said, that choice should be honored and if you do circumvent that choice it needs to be communicated clearly and in a non-deceptive manner. And, at the same time, if you are an ad blocker, you do need to be clear about what you are doing. If you are charging, you need to make that clear up front.

Competition issues, she said, are more complicated: “Consumer protection is a mile wide and a foot deep. Competition is a foot wide and a mile deep.”

According to Brill, the advertising industry needs to be much more transparent with consumers, however a lot of the advertising players are non-consumer facing and many consumers don’t know what an ad network is, or an analytics firm. She said we need much better tools to enable this transparency, whether it be more immersive portals that let consumers understand what is happening with their data, or better controls or better just-in-time notices. Brill cited the Ad Choices program sponsored by IAB as a good first step, but said that the execution remains problematic. The ad industry, she emphasized, needs to be more transparent and creative in giving consumers control.

While there’s a common industry perception that the consumer owes something to the site their viewing and that their payment is to look at the ads and to understand the value exchange, Brill thinks that is completely different than the way the consumer understands this exchange. What she hopes will happen online as a result of “the ad blocking wars,” is that advertisers will say we need to engage consumers more, we need to make them want to watch ads.

It is essential, as Brill pointed out, to look at advertising from the consumer perspective: The consumer is not going to sit and look at ads that are disruptive, untrustworthy, that are gathering a lot of information about them just because publishers and advertisers think they should. Advertisers have to gain their trust; they have to gain their engagement.

She also cited the practice of pitching consumers’ web searches back to them as advertisements as disrespectful of them, which she illustrated through searches for medical information.

Kint has often advocated a Do Not Track standard as a way to put control into the hands of consumers about what data is collected and how it is used. Brill said that it is too bad that the many people who were involved in the initial W3C discussions about Do Not Track lacked a crystal ball to see what has been the result of not having a robust Do Not Track system early on. It would have led to more trust, and would not have taken us to where we are now.

In response to a question about European Union Safe Harbor laws, Brill said she spends a lot of time talking to her European counterparts because there’s a lot of misunderstanding about how robustly the U.S. engages in privacy enforcement and how robust our laws are. She also talked about the need for developing a new data transfer mechanism to replace Safe Harbor and the need to do it quickly. Brill said that a solution needs to be put into place to enable the free flow of information between continents. It needs to focus on how protective it is, not avoidance of liability. It needs to focus on the principles that underlie it. Ultimately, the FTC needs to be able to easily protect Europeans’ data, as well as that of Americans.

The discussion was then opened up to audience Q&A.

Here’s the video:

Perspectives

DCN hosts high-level discussion on lessons learned from Ad Blocking (video)

Below are summaries and video of Part 1 and 2 of DCN’s “The Consumer Rules: Lessons From Ad Blocking” event, held December 16, 2015 at the Newseum in Washington D.C. Part 3, a fireside chat with FTC Commissioner Brill can be found here. 

Jason Kint kicked off the event “The Consumer Rules: Lessons From Ad Blocking” by framing Digital Content Next’s interest in the ad blocking issue—as an organization that exclusively represents digital content companies who have direct, trust-based relationships with consumers and advertisers. While he made it clear that advertising is certainly not the sole revenue channel for DCN member companies, he pointed out that for all members—who compete on the same digital devices across the same pipes—digital ad revenue is an important piece of the future.

Given that, as Nielson reports year after year, digital advertising is one of the least-trusted forms of advertising, it is clear that there is a fundamental problem that’s leading to distrust of digital advertising. And a growing number of consumers are opting out of advertising by blocking ads wholesale, thereby removing the major revenue source for digital content. Kint pointed to Adobe / PageFair research which brought the growth of ad blocking into the spotlight as well as recent DCN research, which looks at consumer plans to adopt ad blockers.

Some of the primary reasons for consumers choosing to install ad blockers, according to the DCN Report, include: intrusive advertising, concern about behavioral tracking and data collection, speed and performance of the web (particularly on mobile). While Kint said the entire industry does need to think about performance and experience, we also need to keep a close eye on privacy concerns.

Here’s the video:

Digiday staff writer Ricardo Bilton then moderated a panel featuring Jed Hartman, CRO of the Washington Post, Heather West, senior policy manger of Mozilla, Fatemeh Khatibloo, principal analyst at Forrester Research, and Ben Barokas, CEO of Sourcepoint.

Among the panelists, only one said that they do not run an ad blocker: Hartman. West said that she installed one out of pure frustration based upon a poor experience at a single site, a type of behavior she described as “the nuclear option.” Not surprisingly, Khatibloo gave her reason as a desire to block data collection whereas Barokas’ cited the need for a comprehensive understanding of ad blockers as essential to his business. He also said that there’s only upside for consumers who install ad blockers today.

However, Hartman—the lone holdout among the panelists—pointed out that if these panelists represent a growing and ongoing trend, many “household name publishers will close their doors.” And that, he said, is not ultimately good for the consumer. To forestall this trend, the Washington Post has invested in research on consumer ad experiences that will continue to support the creation of content they rely on.

The ad blocker ‘solution’ is sort of a Trump-like solution:
‘No ads come in!’ —Jed Hartman, CRO, Washington Post

(Watch here)

Barokas noted that the implied contract by which the consumer tacitly agrees to view advertising in exchange for content is seeing the end of days. He believes that we need to move to a model in which this agreement becomes explicit through “a transparent value exchange.”

The implied contract is that a publisher will provide content to the user in exchange,
the user will consume the advertising to subsidize that experience.
We’ve gotten to the point from an industry perspective where that needs to move from
being implicit to explicit.  —Ben Barokas, CEO of Sourcepoint

(Watch here)

 Media companies, according to Khatibloo, have been poor communicators with consumers, particularly about the data collection that is going on, but she also admitted that it is very difficult to do.

Mozilla’s perspective, said West, is not about ad blocking. Instead, it is about content neutrality that is based upon openness and transparency about how Mozilla makes the distinction about bad content, whatever the source. She also agreed with Khatibloo’s point that there’s a need for better communication between consumers and publishers and believes that Mozilla is in a good position to help enable this process.

Things are going to change radically over the next few years, according to Hartman who is hopeful there will be a more “surgical approach” to ad blocking in the near future. And he believes that if many publishers work hard to improve ad experiences and mobile load times, adoption can be slowed on mobile.  Khatibloo countered that even premium publishers are doing an “atrocious job” on mobile advertising and that it eats up consumers’ data.

We have this opportunity in mobile to prevent [ad blocking] from happening…
the trouble is that even premium publishers are doing an atrocious job with mobile advertising.
–Fatemeh Khatibloo, principal analyst at Forrester Research
There aren’t really good mobile formats that will compensate the publishers to the degree
that they need in order to be able to create quality content profitably.
—Ben Barokas, CEO of Sourcepoint

(Watch here)

While several panelists touched upon the dubious “white listing” practices of ad blocking software companies, Khatibloo mentioned the constructive approach of the EFF’s proposal to white list sites that adhere to what it deems to be appropriate consumer protection guidelines. She also believes that the time is right for micropayments, which give consumers the clear option to compensate publishers while pointing out that the level of revenue is not likely to make up for the loss of advertising.

Hartman raised the question of whether advertiser desire for data may be driving ad blocker adoption. Big Data, he pointed out, has been one of the big innovations in advertising, yet it is a challenge in the ad blocker community and makes conversations with marketers very difficult.

We haven’t talked about advertisers yet, but they wield enormous power… Big data has been the trend.
Probably the biggest innovation in advertising has been the use of data… but it is [an issue] with the ad blocking community. —Jed Hartman, CRO, Washington Post

(Watch here)

Looking to the future, Hartman expressed the opinion that we’ll see a change in advertisers’ perspective once there aren’t enough eyeballs available via digital advertising because of ad blocking. Meanwhile, he said publishers will start to “clean up their act” and focus on creating better digital advertising experiences.

The discussion was then opened up to audience Q&A.

Here’s the video:

Perspectives | Policy

Ad blocking: It might be time for an FTC assist

This week, we released our 2015 DCN Ad Blocking Report  which shows that 33% of U.S. consumers are very likely or somewhat likely to try ad blocking software in the next three months. Coupled with research by Adobe and PageFair that showed a 41% increase in the use of ad blocking from 2014 Q2 to 2015 Q2 it’s clear we’re seeing a steady, significant rise in consumers using ad blocking software.

Interestingly, Doc Searls notes that ad blocking (which he calls “the biggest boycott in human history”) started spiking right around the time that Do Not Track (DNT) signals began to be ignored. As we’ve written before, we think consumers have been actively searching for ways to control their online experience and better protect their privacy. They started with clearing cookies, then enabling DNT and now they’re blocking ads altogether.

As our research and that by others has noted, ad blocking software meets a number of consumer needs, a major one being poor online experiences due to advertising. Some ads can be intrusive and annoying and pages load much faster without ads (much less endless third party calls).

Consumers are also concerned about their privacy and are looking for better ways to opt out of having their data collected with little transparency. Consumers are concerned about their security and the various unknown entities having access to and potentially compromising their devices.

While meeting consumer experience needs is laudable and an important wake up call for industry, the other side of the coin may be fraught with harmful and shady business practices.

As I wrote in September, ad blockers shouldn’t block conversations between a publisher and a consumer – this kind of back and forth dialogue helps the publisher better understand and meet consumer needs while it also helps educate consumers. After all, let’s keep in mind that most early adopters of ad blocking software tend to be young males (hint: I was once one of them – we didn’t always appreciate the big picture).

Also, as has been reported, ad blocking companies will accept payments to whitelist ads from companies. Of course, those ads need to meet a set of acceptable ads criteria. But those criteria tend to be nebulous and interpreted behind closed doors while the payment is being negotiated, which doesn’t make for a healthy marketplace. Indeed, it is often the case that the ads that are whitelisted are text-only ads that add absolutely nothing to the overall experience for the consumer. I would argue that, rather than read any conceivable text ad, most consumers would rather laugh at a new Geico ad or mock one of Matthew McConaughey’s ethereal, self-indulgent car commercials, especially if that ad was stripped down to a minimum of 3rd party tags and did not track me across the web.

Regardless of what ads should be shown or whether they should be shown at all, I think we can all agree that disrupting an important dialogue between consumers and publishers and shaking down publishers to whitelist ads are not the hallmarks of a healthy ecosystem. It would be helpful for the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to examine whether these business practices and agreements are undermining the ability of content creators and consumers to find a value exchange that works for both. The FTC plays an important role in keeping our industry healthy by working with good faith actors to establish best practices, shining a light on new, emerging technologies and bringing enforcement cases to end shady business practices.

Needless to say, these issues are top of mind for DCN and the premium publishers we represent. We’re looking forward to an opportunity to explore this topic, among others, at our December 16th event The Consumer Rules: Lessons from Ad Blocking. It will be held at the Newseum in Washington, DC from 8:30 to 11:00 AM on Wednesday, December 16. Because solving the issues causing and caused by ad blocking requires wide ranging participation, we’re hosting an interactive discussion featuring Jed Hartman, Chief Revenue Officer of the Washington Post; Heather West, Senior Policy Manager, at Mozilla; Ben Barokas, CEO of Sourcepoint; and Fatemeh Khatibloo, Principal Analyst at Forrester Research. Following the panel, we will have a fireside chat with FTC Commissioner Julie Brill.

It should be a lively discussion; it is certainly an important one.

Research

Content marketing, ad blocking and other trends that rocked digital publishing in 2015

2015 was as existential as they come for digital media and advertising. Some of the biggest stories that captivated the industry represented tough questions that have been brewing for years but are no longer avoidable.

So which of these stories captivated the industry? We analyzed 5,600 articles from industry trades that were published between Jan. 01 — Nov. 11, and the approximately 4 million resulting page views to determine which topics resonated most, and when.

General Findings

  • Content Marketing accounted for the most overall page views of the trends analyzed in 2015.
  • Mobilegeddon generated the most page views/story (which we can use as a measure of “degree of interest” in a topic), then effectively vanished from people’s minds.
  • After its initial splash in May, Facebook Instant Articles seemed to vanish from the radar until Fall, when it wasrolled out to more publishers and more users.
  • News that Programmatic accounted for 20% of all 2014 digital ad spend got the industry’s attention in July.

The Ad Block Problem
The conversation about ad blockers reached fever pitch in September, as news broke that Apple’s iOS would let users install ad blockers and that some ads could avoid being blocked… for a price. Advertising Week Sept 28 — Oct 2, was essentially an unofficial summit on how to deal with the rise of ad blockers.

The Mobilegeddon That Wasn’t?
After the initial news about Google changing its algorithm to reward more mobile-friendly pages in its search engine results, interest in Mobilegeddon quickly died down as people realized its impact was minimal or indeterminate on their business.

Fig1Mobilegeddon

Content Marketing Becoming the Norm?
Content marketing is now a routine part of industry coverage, and has been for the last couple of years. Unlike the other trends in this analysis, interest in content marketing was less subject to dramatic spikes and dips, growing steadily throughout the year as marketers focused on tips for doing it better, planning for 2016, and its overall growth in the industry.

Native Interests
Native advertising generated its interest in relation to two developments: Snapchat announcing the creation of a native ad agency with a handful of media companies at Cannes Lions, and Advertising Week, where Ad Blocking dominated the conversation. Native advertising began to resurface as an alternative for brands and publishers.

Facebook Instant Articles
After making waves with its initial announcement and launch of Instant Articles — which hosts a publisher’s content directly in the News Feed — radio silence ensued for the duration of the summer, leaving many to wonder if it was getting off to a slow start. Then in September, Facebook added more publishers to Instant Articles, and in October, rolled it out to all iPhone users, which re-ignited interest.

The spike in intrigue over Facebook Instant Articles perfectly embodies a tough question publishers have been mulling for years but is no longer avoidable in 2015: at what point do I pull back on trying to pool audiences on my own site and invest more heavily in reaching new audiences where they already congregate?

Naturally, the reaction to Facebook’s offer varied, as some wondered how far Facebook would go in using publisher content to fuel their growing media empire, while others urged caution in how much content should be Instant vs. Owned.

But perhaps lost in the shuffle was Facebook’s own justification for presenting a publisher’s content to users in this way, the same justification Google used in its push Accelerated Mobile Pages (AMP) push.

Fig2FBInstant

A Better User Experience
It almost always comes down to the user.

From the ongoing discussion on what native advertising should look like, to the initial panic over “mobilegeddon,” at heart is how to work towards an Internet consumers are almost uniformly pleased with. In a way, the popularity of both ad blockers and content marketing are symptoms of that ideal.

Brandon Carter is a Content Specialist at Outbrain (@brandedcarter @Outbrain). He began his career as a staff journalist for the Maine weekly ‘The Coastal Journal’ before moving to New York and joining the product licensing divisions of Peanuts Worldwide and Sesame Workshop.

©2024 Digital Content Next. All Rights Reserved.